- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Rajasthan High Court
- /
- Can't Have Two FIRs For Same...
Can't Have Two FIRs For Same Accusation, Trial Court Didn't Consider Negative Report Before Cognizance: Rajasthan HC Exonerates Man Of Charges
Nupur Agrawal
21 Feb 2025 5:27 AM
While setting aside charges against a man booked in two FIRs having the same set of accusations, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that two cases could not run simultaneously for same set of accusation.The court further observed that trial court while taking cognizance failed to take note of the grounds mentioned in the negative final report filed by the police in relation to the...
While setting aside charges against a man booked in two FIRs having the same set of accusations, the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that two cases could not run simultaneously for same set of accusation.
The court further observed that trial court while taking cognizance failed to take note of the grounds mentioned in the negative final report filed by the police in relation to the FIR.
Justice Farjand Ali in his order said, "The fact and allegations leveled in FIR No.02/1994 and the FIR No.09/1994 in which offence are exactly the same and are in relation to a transaction which took place on 19.03.1990 whereby a plot was sold to Smt. Saraswati which belonged to Smt. Sugni Devi. This Court feels that the learned Magistrate has not taken care of settled legal proposition that for the same set of accusation, two cases cannot run simultaneously. In the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., 2001 (6) SCC 181 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has expounded that where the truth, the substance, nature of allegation and transaction is the same then lodging a second FIR cannot be permitted. Having not considered the above issue, the learned trial court has indeed committed an error of law".
The court further noted that the after the investigation, it was reported by the investigating agency that no case was found against the petitioner had not been dealt with by the trial court before passing cognizance order.
The high court said that it is well settled principle of law that whenever a Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance of the offence on a negative final report, it is "imperative upon him to take note of the grounds mentioned in the negative final report".
"In the order under assail no such task has been undertaken by the learned Magistrate and I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was supposed to show his disagreement with the police report before taking cognizance of offence and issuance of process. Examining further, this Court feels that the learned Court of Revision has failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. He was expected to examine the legality and correctness of the order passed by learned Magistrate but he did not bother to ponder over the question of law rather lean to concur with the opinion of the Magistrate. I am of the view that both the orders are patently illegal and passed after misappreciation of legal and factual aspect of the matter and therefore, the same are not sustainable," the court said.
The high court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the trial court (magistrate court) that took cognizance of offence of cheating against the petitioner, as well as the order of the revision court (sessions court) that affirmed the trial court's order.
An FIR was filed against the petitioner for cheating, alleging sale of a plot based on issuance of fake NOC. Another FIR was already lodged against the petitioner in relation to same transaction. In the latter FIR, the police filed a negative final report but based on the protest filed by the complainant, the trial court took cognizance and issued process against the petitioner.
The high court thereafter allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by both the trial court and court of revision. It thus exonerated the petitioner from the charges.
Case Title: Champa Lal Ojha v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 69
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit